Jump to content


Photo

2 or 3 perf super35 to Scope Projection - starting to become a preferred format?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Other
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 23 July 2007 - 01:21 AM

Heya all

been to quite a few films lately where I've seen non-anamorphic 35mm shooting formats that have been printed in scope for the added advantages of that projection format - 2, 3 and 4 perf and whatever advantages each pulldown give you in shooting all still receive the same benefit of a much brighter screen image due to the relative density or flux of light in the same-ish or even smaller area on screen ... (The extra projection light isn't otherwise just heating up an aperture plate) - Its just an efficient use of film real-estate as I dont think 2 or 3 perf projectors are going to be the next wild 'invention' ...

Some films I've seen lately even have both scope and non-anamorphic in the same anamorphic print - super35, vista-vision whatever...

Anyhoo... what I'm after is any info on examples where 16mm footage has been printed in scope...

I imagine either super16 that has had its tops and bots chopped or maybe reg16mm or super16mm shot in some flavor of anamorphic (1.5x / 2x) with its sides cropped off for a 2k or higher scan ...

I'm not so much concerned with the grain issues and some vain attempt to remove them and understand that budget wise films that go through a DI would have shot 35mm in the first instance - but maybe there is someone out there like me would like to see the look of 16mm with its grain and wotnot but in a nice bright 2.39

yes yes ? no ?
  • 0

#2 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 July 2007 - 10:30 AM

"Never Die Alone" was shot this way (super 16 cropped to 2.35/1 anamorphic projection). However, since it's long past its theatrical release, you won't see the full effect of the blowup. This approach works well on DVD, but in the theater the grain was so intense that it would have had to bother even the average theatergoer, let alone the more critical members of this forum.

If you're considering this approach, you absolutely MUST test for yourself before committing an entire project. One possible way to reduce the amount of grain to tolerable levels would be to shoot on the slowest stock you can get away with, avoiding 500T if at all possible.
  • 0

#3 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 24 July 2007 - 02:29 PM

This approach works well on DVD, but in the theater the grain was so intense that it would have had to bother even the average theatergoer, let alone the more critical members of this forum.

One possible way to reduce the amount of grain to tolerable levels would be to shoot on the slowest stock you can get away with, avoiding 500T if at all possible.


The 2.35/1 image height on S16 is the same as 1.85/1 on 16R. Thus one should expect similar grain in the two formats.

As to 16R Anamorphic, if one divides the height of the frame by the square root of the squeeze and multiplies the width by the square root of the squeeze, one gets an unsqueezed frame with the same area as the squeezed frame. The graininess of the two frames will be similar. Using the 2X squeeze, the height of the "unsqueezed" frame is about the same as the S16 2.35 and the 16R 1.85.

So all three formats should have the same graininess.

Off hand, 'Kissed' 1996 was shot on 16R Fuji 64T, 64D & 125T. The 35mm 1.85 projection was grainless.
'Female Trouble' and 'Desperate Living' were ECO 7252 & great looking blowups, 1.85, also.

& of course, there's 'The Last King of Scotland'.
  • 0

#4 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Other
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 24 July 2007 - 03:18 PM

So all three formats should have the same graininess.

Off hand, 'Kissed' 1996 was shot on 16R Fuji 64T, 64D & 125T. The 35mm 1.85 projection was grainless.
'Female Trouble' and 'Desperate Living' were ECO 7252 & great looking blowups, 1.85, also.

& of course, there's 'The Last King of Scotland'.


Thanks for the help (x2) - yes, I would definatly test... A part of the testing was the cheap version, where I simply check out other films that have done the same...

I have seen what 16mm can look like in 1.85 and am happy with the grain, and would work with it as an element to be taken advantage of (probably avoiding the faster stocks regardless)

Was 'The Last King of Scotland' printed/projected in scope though ?

I remember 'City of God' was multi format - cant remember if it was scope.

Really want to see them projected though
  • 0

#5 Phil Connolly

Phil Connolly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 377 posts
  • Director
  • London

Posted 24 July 2007 - 03:46 PM

"London to Brighton" was 2.39:1 super 16, it looked pretty good, I saw it in a 2K D-cinema - so the film prints may be a bit softer, but the 16mm texture worked really well for the film. It wasn't too grainy not sure what the stocks were but the film was very low budget and theres quite a bit of night stuff with limited lighting that looked good.

I also saw a short shot on super 16 composed for 2.39:1 and put through a DI and screened of HDCAM and that looked totally acceptable - sharper and less grainy then a couple of 1960s, 1970s true scope 35mm Panavision, rep prints I saw at the cinema recently.
  • 0

#6 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 July 2007 - 05:00 PM

Guys, the mathematically correct number for scope is 2.39:1. 2.35:1 was tried briefly at the very beginning, but had to be changed quickly as negative splices were showing up on screen. Some people even like to round it up to 2.40:1, which is also incorrect. Apologies in advance to those who find this to be a nit-pick.



-- J.S.
  • 0

#7 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 July 2007 - 05:04 PM

I dont think 2 or 3 perf projectors are going to be the next wild 'invention' ...

Strangely enough, a couple years back there was a guy trying to market a "two and a half" perf projection system. You can do that easily with an intermittent sprocket pulldown, but not with any kind of claw mechanism.



-- J.S.
  • 0

#8 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 24 July 2007 - 07:18 PM

Guys, the mathematically correct number for scope is 2.39:1. 2.35:1 was tried briefly at the very beginning, but had to be changed quickly as negative splices were showing up on screen. Some people even like to round it up to 2.40:1, which is also incorrect. Apologies in advance to those who find this to be a nit-pick.
-- J.S.

If I may nit-pick your nit-pick...Arri 'scope ground glass is marked for 2.35:1. 2.39:1 is the scope projection ratio.
  • 0

#9 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 24 July 2007 - 07:23 PM

The 2.35/1 image height on S16 is the same as 1.85/1 on 16R. Thus one should expect similar grain in the two formats.

No way. The 2.35/1 cropped image goes through a significantly larger blowup (and squeeze) for an anamorphic projection gate.
  • 0

#10 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 25 July 2007 - 01:58 PM

No way. The 2.35/1 cropped image goes through a significantly larger blowup (and squeeze) for an anamorphic projection gate.


The 1.85 blow up is 2.2x.
The 16mm anamorphic blow up is 2.5x.

A standard S16 blow up is 1.78x.
The SuperScope variation adds an additional 2x horizontal stretch:
thus 1.78x1.78x2=6.3368.
2.5x2.5=6.25.

That's a 1.4% difference in area between the SuperScope16 and the anamorphic 16.

The height of the 35mm scope projection aperture is 0.715",
divided by 1.78 divided by 2=0.201".

0.446" (1.85/1) divided by 2.2=0.202".

0.715" divided by 2.5x=0.286" divided by sq.root of 2=0.202"


While the 2.35 blow ups are a bit more that the spherical blow up'
The amount of enlargement in anamorphic projection is less than that of 1.85/1,
thus the over all degree of enlargement to the screen balances out.

Plus the larger scope I/N and print give an edge in grain and sharpness and sreen illumination.

QED
  • 0

#11 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 25 July 2007 - 02:35 PM

Thanks for the help (x2) - yes, I

Was 'The Last King of Scotland' printed/projected in scope though ?


Yes, it was. I suspect the opening scene in Scotland might be 35mm.
  • 0

#12 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Other
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 25 July 2007 - 04:10 PM

Scope was intended to and still is in many cinemas to be the 'special' format and as such the screen would widen out after the trailers & adverts... But I've noticed now that instead of side masking getting bigger some newer multiplexes opt for decreasing the screen size by bringing in top and bottom masking (hence an even brighter brighter image) ...

You'd need to do your calculations for both set ups yes ?

and I'm pretty sure it should be 2.39 on film (once x2) - I'll get out my calipers and a loupe on some film later tonight :lol:

ah! heres some film right here - hang on:

18.5h x 22.0w or so (cant find my calipers and I'm just eyeing it with a steel rule) - its from 'Avalon' which has the DTS code stripe too ...

so 22 x2 / 18.5 = 2.37837837838...

closer to 2.39 - and 44 / 18.4 (the 18.5 was 'closer' to 18.4 than it was 18.6) gives 2.39

but most cinema maskings aren't set up perfectly so the aspects go all over the place anyway (not that that affects the logic/discussion in hand)


Wonder if anyone is still sceening The Last King of Scotland over here in Noo Zealand ? - cheers for the example !

Edited by Nick Mulder, 25 July 2007 - 04:11 PM.

  • 0

#13 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 25 July 2007 - 07:13 PM

The 1.85 blow up is 2.2x.
The 16mm anamorphic blow up is 2.5x.

While the 2.35 blow ups are a bit more that the spherical blow up'

The amount of enlargement in anamorphic projection is less than that of 1.85/1,
thus the over all degree of enlargement to the screen balances out.

Plus the larger scope I/N and print give an edge in grain and sharpness and sreen illumination.

QED

The specific example I originally cited, which you edited out in your response, was not filmed in the method you describe, but was rather shot spherically and cropped for anamorphic blowup, as is typically done with super 16. The result is unquestionably grainier and softer than the same image would be cropped for spherical 35mm projection. (One might still prefer the look of scope, which is understandable.) I was merely pointing out to the original poster that he needs to see his results projected (as was his stated target), as opposed to analyzing works shot this way on DVD, since the qualitative difference is significant. (It's not a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of super 16 blowups end up in the 1.85/1 projection ratio.)

QED

(That said, the upcoming Steven Soderberg film "Guerrilla" is stated to be shot in 16mm anamorphic, which has been an extreme rarity up to this point. It will provide a unique opportunity to see this format projected theatrically.)
  • 0

#14 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 26 July 2007 - 01:32 PM

The specific example I originally cited, which you edited out in your response, was not filmed in the method you describe, but was rather shot spherically and cropped for anamorphic blowup, as is typically done with super 16.

My response included the cropped S16, which at points I've referred to as SuperScope, which was the original process of making anamorphic blow ups from a flat negative.
& compared it with 1.85 regular 16mm and anamorphic 16mm to show that they all have comprable area, thus cropped S16 2.35/1 should look similar to 1.85 16R, an SMPTE designation for standard 16mm.
  • 0

#15 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 26 July 2007 - 02:11 PM

cropped S16 2.35/1 should look similar to 1.85 16R

That just supports my point, as 1.85 16R is typically considered inferior to 1.85 S16 when blown up to 35mm.

QED
  • 0

#16 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 26 July 2007 - 02:35 PM

That just supports my point, as 1.85 16R is typically considered inferior to 1.85 S16 when blown up to 35mm.

QED


But still capable of being good quality.

& 1.85 projection is inferior to CinemaScope projection.

& grain as certain appeal to it.
  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

Opal

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Opal

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Tai Audio